Suppiah Chettiyar Et Al., V. Samarakoon

1954 Present: Sansoni J.

A. C. SUPPIAH CHETTIYAR et al., Appellants, and S. M. D. B. SAMARAKOON, Respondent

S. C. 117-118-C. R. Kandy, 9,066

Rent Restriction Act-Business premises-" Reasonable requirement " of landlord- Factors for consideration.

Plaintiff was the landlord of the defendants in respect of certain premises. He sought to have them ejected on the ground that he required the premises for his trade and business. The evidence showed that the premises were already being used by the tenants since the year 1938 as the principal place of their chief business of selling sundry goods.

Held, that, when assessing whether the landlord reasonably required the premises, the Court should give due weight to the advantage to the tenant of continuing to occupy the same premises and to the proportionate disadvantage suffered by him by being forced to leave them. The value of a business such as selling sundry goods would depend to a large extent on the length of time that it had been carried on in the same premises.

Held further, that the fact that the plaintiff invested a large sum of money in the purchase of the premises in the expectation of getting vacant possession was not a measure of the reasonableness of his claim.

Quaere, whether it is hardship to the landlord or the tenant alone that must be taken into account, or whether there is a " claim of third persons whose reflected hardship, so to speak, may be taken into account ".

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Kandy.

H. V. Perera, Q.C., with H. W. Tambiah, for the defendants appellants.

C. Thiagalingam, Q.C., with P. Somatilakam, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 6, 1954. SANSONI J.-

The plaintiff-respondent in this appeal is the landlord of the two defendants-appellants in respect of premises No. 150, Colombo Street, Kandy. The defendants-appellants have been carrying on in partnership the business of selling sundry goods in those premises since 1938. In 1946 they started an additional business of money lending along with one Alagu, and this business too has been carried on upstairs in these premises since then. There is a third business in tobacco being carried on solely by one Murugesu in those same premises. Murugesu had been a tenant under the respective owners of these premises for as long as the defendants themselves, and he became the tenant of the defendants when they purchased the premises in 1949.

The defendants took a five-year lease of these premises in 1946, from the owner Saul Hamid. In 1949, they purchased the premises from Saul Hamid subject to an agreement to retransfer to him within 4 years. In 1951 the plaintiff bought Saul Hamid's right to get a retransfer, but

agreed contemporaneously to retransfer the premises to Saul Hamid at any time after 8 years, and within 10 years of the execution of that deed of purchase. The defendants necessarily had to convey the premises to the plaintiff after he had bought Saul Hamid's right to get a retransfer from the defendants, and this they did in 1952. The plaintiff is therefore the owner subject to Saul Hamid's right to get a retransfer from him, and he has paid Rs. 36,000 in all to acquire his present right in the property. After he became the owner on 22nd January, 1952, the plaintiff accepted rent from the defendants ; on 27th February, 1952, he gave the defendants notice to quit the premises but the defendants have not yet vacated the premises. The plaintiff brought this action on 6th May, 1952, to have the defendants ejected on the ground that he requires the premises for his trade and business, and the only issue for determination is whether they are reasonably required for that purpose.

The plaintiff runs a fairly large wholesale business in sundry goods in Maturata where he lives. He owns a house and other property there and he says he is worth about half a lakh of rupees.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document